MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
"These changes don't automatically generate extreme weather events but they change the odds that such events will take place. It is equivalent to the loading of dice, leading to one side being heavier, so that a certain outcome becomes more likely. In the context of global warming, this means that rising temperatures increase the odds of extreme events occurring."

That's what the sceptical scientists say.
https://skepticalscience.com/extreme...al-warming.htm
Oh dear, you dont actually believe that just because the web site is called 'sceptical science' you think the views there are sceptical? LOL!

Dear oh dear, that is just too funny. Anyway, nice you admit that so far warming hasnt increased sever weather events.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by AJ126y)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...nefit-plants1/

So no not really. It benefits them up to a point and ignores the big picture.
Of course the effect isnt infinite, there is a limit to how much CO2 plants can use. And in fact much/all of our crops are grown in nitrogen deficient soil already, that is why we have fertilisers.

Re the article though about loss of nutrition in grains because of increased carbohydrate ratio with elevated CO2. Do you eat white bread and pasta or brown?

You eat white dont you. You are already throwing away the nutritional content of grains. So what do you care?

Oh, and CO2 makes plants more drought resistant, it reduces their water consumption.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Oh dear, you dont actually believe that just because the web site is called 'sceptical science' you think the views there are sceptical? LOL!

Dear oh dear, that is just too funny. Anyway, nice you admit that so far warming hasnt increased sever weather events.
Let's get this straight once and for all, are you trying to say that too much is being made of this climate issue by some people?
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Yes, it has warmed, but since the mid 90s the trend isnt significantly different to zero looking at UAH and HADCRUT data.

Re solar cycles, here is a discussion of a 350 year cycle.
From the figure you linked to, it starts from an average of about -0.1 in the mid 90s and then ends at an average of around 0.3 in the late 2010s. I've actually just run a test on this data set to check for significance. A linear relationship with positive correlation is highly significant (with a p-value < 2.2x10^-16). We can very safely reject the null hypothesis.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but where in the original article does not mention a three hundred year cycle? I've Googled this and can't find any reference to it, especially from NASA.
Last edited by SHallowvale; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by z-hog)
Let's get this straight once and for all, are you trying to say that too much is being made of this climate issue by some people?
Of course. What the scientists say is that it has warmed in the last century and that man has played a 'significant' part. There is considerable debate among scientists about just how much 'significant' means, and how much warming is due to come in the future.

There is also a considerable range of scientific views on what that warming might do to weather patterns. And to date NO scientist is attributing extreme weather to global warming.

So yes, the media and a lot of politically motivated people are making a hell of a lot more out of global warming than there really is.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by SHallowvale)
From the figure you linked to, it starts from an average of about -0.1 in the mid 90s and then ends at an average of around 0.3 in the late 2010s. I've actually just run a test on this data set to check for significance. A linear relationship with positive correlation is highly significant (with a p-value < 2.2x10^-16). We can very safely reject the null hypothesis.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but where in the original article does not mention a three hundred year cycle? I've Googled this and can't find any reference to it, especially from NASA.
If you chose the low point caused by mount pinatubo cooling as your starting point what do you expect?

Level out the el ninos and volcanoes and you get a near flat line. A slight increase, but not that much.

Here is another solar cycle: 88 year solar cycle
Last edited by MonkeyChunks; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
If you chose the low point caused by mount pinatubo cooling as your starting point what do you expect?

Level out the el ninos and volcanoes and you get a near flat line. A slight increase, but not that much.

Here is another solar cycle: 88 year solar cycle
Take out the El Ninos and "volcanoes" and the relationship is still significant.

Can we continue to talk about your original article, please? Where does it mention a solar cycle which is 350 years long?
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Take out the El Ninos and "volcanoes" and the relationship is still significant.

Can we continue to talk about your original article, please? Where does it mention a solar cycle which is 350 years long?
The next five years will be crucial. If temperatures fall then CO2 has a weak effect. If they stay flat, as they have been, then it is strong enough to counter the effect of the weak solar cycle. Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020

Here is discussion of a whole bunch of solar cycles: solar cycles
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
So yes, the media and a lot of politically motivated people are making a hell of a lot more out of global warming than there really is.
So what about the billions collected in green taxes and the trillions shared out among the carbon- credit trading community, could all that be a bit over the top? Our green levy on leccy for next year is going to double, a fifth of our bills it will be. All that and we're not all going to die?

Thanks for your input, I just look at the people behind the hysteria and that's enough for me. Manually repped.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by z-hog)
So what about the billions collected in green taxes and the trillions shared out among the carbon- credit trading community, could all that be a bit over the top? Our green levy on leccy for next year is going to double, a fifth of our bills it will be. All that and we're not all going to die?

Thanks for your input, I just look at the people behind the hysteria and that's enough for me. Manually repped.
It is disgusting that people in Europe should be living in energy poverty.

It is costing, in the UK, the NHS a lot of money too: fuel poverty These green taxes are an obscenity. It is all very well saying that climate change is a way of distributing the worlds wealth from rich countries to poor ones. (Edenhoffer, Figueres admit true nature of climate change) but it is the poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#31
Report 3 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
The next five years will be crucial. If temperatures fall then CO2 has a weak effect. If they stay flat, as they have been, then it is strong enough to counter the effect of the weak solar cycle. Global Warming vs. Solar Cooling: The Showdown Begins in 2020

Here is discussion of a whole bunch of solar cycles: solar cycles
They have not remained flat.
0
reply
JakeTSR
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 weeks ago
#32
Ok boomer
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
... but it is the poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries.
Even over here, this is from 2011 and the rest is history:

They are among the nation's wealthiest aristocrats, whose families have protected the British landscape for centuries. Until now that is.

For increasing numbers of the nobility – among them dukes and even a cousin of the Queen – are being tempted by tens of millions of pounds offered by developers to build giant wind farms on their estates.

An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph reveals how generous subsidies – that are added to consumer energy bills – are encouraging hereditary landowners to build turbines up to 410ft tall on their land.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...subsidies.html

They'd be laughing their way to the bank if they didn't own it already.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#34
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by SHallowvale)
They have not remained flat.
climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by z-hog)
Even over here, this is from 2011 and the rest is history:




https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...subsidies.html

They'd be laughing their way to the bank if they didn't own it already.
And the working class pay the bill..... Disgusting isnt it.
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#36
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by JakeTSR)
Ok boomer
What is this supposed to mean, some kind of an insult?
0
reply
username4977980
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 weeks ago
#37
Did you miss the bit right after when it said it has unequivocally ended?
0
reply
username4977980
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#38
Report 3 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
What is this supposed to mean, some kind of an insult?
Its a way of dismissing your argument because its so stupid that it's just not worth engaging with it. A boomer is a member of the older generation. A generation known for espousing climate denialism contrary to all the established facts.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#39
Report 3 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by AJ126y)
Its a way of dismissing your argument because its so stupid that it's just not worth engaging with it. A boomer is a member of the older generation. A generation known for espousing climate denialism contrary to all the established facts.
Oh please, that stupid **** is what makes it impossible to take someone like you seriously at all. And then they want to the world to stop and listen to them...
0
reply
JakeTSR
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#40
Report 3 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
What is this supposed to mean, some kind of an insult?
If you weren’t such a boomer you might know.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (354)
46.09%
No (82)
10.68%
I'm not old enough (332)
43.23%

Watched Threads

View All